h/t: Atheism 411
Share this:
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
Always Question Authority 
Hello Madison,
This is a great topic and it can be debated. However, we must use our reasoning skills and creativity. Jane is right to a large extent, but I do not care for her style of presentation as it’s a bit rude.
These types of topics and questions cannot be answered using science in any way, shape or form. Please leave science out of this. OK?
You can debate this all you like, but, please, leave science out of it. It’s a very valid topic that can be debated using other methods of inquiry. Namely , own thinking abilities in the raw form.
Best Regards,
Antonio
Antonio Ortiz,
I am not sure if John/Jane even read the post, and your response is really in response to his/her pedestrian, ad hoministic, anti-science diatribe, for the post addressed free-will.
In Reason,
Madison
Agree, what post are these people responding to? The post here is related to free will. Are they taking issue with free will? Why are they on about science here?
Madison:
You’re not being intellectually honest. While it is often said that ” there is no evidence ruling God in etc.”, it is ALSO and EQUALLY TRUE that there is NO evidence ruling God out EITHER. THAT is a VERY, VERY, VERY important point!
Dr. Krauss HIMSELF said ” Science is NOT at all at odds with the POSSIBILITY of DEISM- the CONCEPT of DEISM ITSELF.” Sure, it is at odds with various stories in various religious texts ( Torah, Bible etc.) BUT NOT deism itself.
Science cannot and does not address the God issue. Science does have LIMITS, BOUNDARIES and areas that it does not deal with because it cannot. It’s not equipped to. Questions of this nature fall waaaaaaaay outside of the boundaries and scope of what science can actually do.
The University of California at Berkely has a huge article about this. They are science educators. EDUCATE YOURSELF !
Dawkins is ABUSING science for PROFIT. He also blatantly lied about Darwin’s personal beliefs in his autobiography. Darwin was a theist.
Regards,
Jane Whitaker
Jane,
“it is ALSO and EQUALLY TRUE that there is NO evidence ruling God out EITHER. THAT is a VERY, VERY, VERY important point!”
You are correct that it is a very, very important point; however, I believe you are missing the point. Do not ever forget that one who makes a positive claim, i.e., “there is a God,” is the one responsible to prove such a claim. One who denies such a claim has absolutely no responsibility to prove the negative. “THAT is a VERY, VERY, VERY important point!”
The remainder of your diatribe had absolutely nothing to do with the post, and does not deign a response.
If you dare comment on this blog, please make an attempt to organize your thoughts, and follow the rules of logic before making nonsensical, unrelated, ad hominem attacks.
In Reason,
Madison
This is a tired and tiresome refrain, usually delivered like a schoolyard dare: “You can’t prove God does not exist, so there.” As Madison points out, this challenge begs so many questions. First, what do you mean by “God” and, secondly, what do you mean by “exist”? If one were to say that God is a product of the human imagination that posits a supernatural explanation and source for reality, then it “exists” as any other idea, hope, or explanation exists. However, as an explanation for reality, it has never been proven to exist except in human imaginings. So why is a nonbeliever then required to come up with opposing evidence when you have provided none yourself? How would that somehow make you right? I grant you that some kind of vague, imperfect notion of God exists—in your head.
Further you seem to drift back and forth between deism and theism—two entirely different things and explanations of God. So, again, if you do not define your notion of God, how exactly can one engage with what you are proposing?
See, Megyn was right, Jesus really was white.